To fix the province’s woes, Ford and his advisers must first understand the primary causes of the problems. A major issue has been crippling energy and environmental policies. It began when, in 1992, then-premier Bob Rae appointed businessman and former UN Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong to be chairman of Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario was a prosperous, economically sound province. Strong changed that when he applied the energy and environmental policies he proposed for the entire world. In 1992, he introduced them through his creation of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the conference he chaired in Rio de Janeiro.<<<Read More>>>

In my younger years growing up in Sundridge, the moose season fell on every even year and lasted a week. You bought your moose license and shot a MOOSE. There were plenty of moose and trappers harvested wolves and hunters harvested spring bears and laws were based on science and time-proven management practices. During this time the powers that be were the Ontario Lands and Forests, later changed to Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Recently renamed Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Much has changed over the past two decades within what I once considered Ontario`s flagship ministry, for without our rich resources what does Ontario have to offer?

I have been deeply concerned about the direction this ministry has been travelling for some years now as laws are now being based on emotion and driven by special interest and protectionist lobby groups.<<<Read More>>>

It has been widely assumed that coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) are incapable of killing adult moose (Alces alces (L., 1758)) and previous studies of coyote predation support this assumption. However, eastern coyotes and eastern coyote × eastern wolf (Canis lycaon Schreber, 1775) are larger than western coyotes and appear to rely on larger prey in some areas. We used a combination of GPS telemetry, genetic analysis, and field investigation to test the hypothesis that eastern coyotes and coyote × wolf hybrids are capable of preying on adult moose in central Ontario. Our hypothesis was supported, as we documented four definitive cases of eastern coyotes and (or) eastern coyote × eastern wolf hybrids killing moose ?1.5 years old. Predation by coyotes and coyote × wolf hybrids probably does not represent a threat to moose population viability in central Ontario, but our results suggest that researchers and managers in other areas with declining moose populations that are sympatric with eastern coyotes and (or) coyote × wolf hybrids should consider coyote predation as a potential source of mortality.<<<Read the full Study>>>

“Since the cancellation of the hunt in 1999 by the PC government of former premier Mike Harris, the black bear population has significantly increased, Rivard says, and nuisance complaints have skyrocketed.

Bears in backyards, bending saplings. Bears in garages or plaguing municipal dumps. And whatever the numbers, they are probably on the low side, he says.

Since not much tends to happen when complaints are lodged, other perhaps than a warning by the Ministry of Natural Resources to hide garbage and barbeques away more diligently, some people in the north have stopped complaining.

“There’s almost an underground movement — ‘shoot, shovel and shut up,’ ” he says. “That means people are taking care of the problem themselves. And that’s a terrible form of wildlife management.”

With the growth in population, bears have been forced to find new turf. “One of the markers of growing populations of any species is expanded range,” he continues. “We know by that alone that the bear population has increased.””<<<Read More>>>

“The population prior to 2000 increased significantly from low numbers in the late 1970-80s due to good forest cutting practices. Wolf numbers were kept in check due to an outbreak of mange, and black bear predation on calves was kept in check until the spring hunt was cancelled in 1999.

Then came the perfect storm of moose disasters.

From 1999 to 2004, 12,000 more bears moved into moose neighbourhoods due to the spring hunt cancellation, white-tailed deer numbers skyrocketed due to mild winters over the past 10 years, and the number of wolves climbed. It’s worth noting that at the same time, the MNR implemented licence fees for wolf hunting and subsequently lowered harvests as well.”<<<Read More>>>

A recent study showed that a recent study isn’t really a recent study at all. A scientific study, one that happens to be recent, showed that recent studies aren’t really recent studies at all but instead are non scientific, romance editorials designed to provide the public with recent study information so that they can write letters to the editor. Make any sense? I didn’t think so.

But don’t get me wrong. First amendment right to free speech is cherished and as much as I dislike reading fiction I wouldn’t ask that it be changed.

Everyone wishing, according to newspaper submission guidelines, can submit their opinions about issues that concern them. Take the spring bear hunting issue in Ontario, Canada. At least two sides exist and according to one side, the other side is wrong, blah, blah, blah.

If you are writing to a credible audience then I would suggest being credible. Accusing the other side of not relying on “scientific studies” and playing on people’s emotions, while you fail to use “scientific studies,” or name your resources and play on people’s emotions, just isn’t going to get the job done.

To explain about “science,” “recent studies,” and “data suggests,” one has to understand what those talking points mean. Science, unfortunately is not science any more. It’s what I call new science that is part of what a friend of mine calls “scientism.” Part of the process to promote agendas is to convince the public that you have the right “science” and everyone else is wrong. After all, there’s a lot of money in being able to do that successfully.

For the very clever person, they utilize the term “peer-reviewed” science or a “peer-reviewed” recent study. Peer reviewed today means some person with abbreviations after their name lied and another person with abbreviations after their name swore to it. This has become a very bad situation for the real and respected science community.

My favorite term is “recent data suggests.” I remember once, several years ago, a man suggested I take a long walk on a short pier. His suggestion meant nothing and more times than not neither does “recent data suggest.”

But getting back to Ontario’s spring bear hunt – which by the way a court tossed out the lawsuit to stop the hunt – in an opinion letter, a person states that a spring bear hunt will do nothing for public safety issues and suggests it might make it worse. The author accuses one side of failing to use science in making its decisions about the spring bear hunt while failing to use any science to argue against a bear hunt……well other than “recent studies,” and “science suggests.”

It is important as well, that is when writing to a credible audience, to be realistic. The writer says that he is, “saddened by the failure of residents in bear country to take responsibility for educating themselves on this issue and on the powerful tools we already have for achieving the goals the spring bear hunt cannot.”

Of course the writer has every right to be sad, but it doesn’t change reality. I might be sad that people who fail to obey traffic laws kill thousands of people a year, regardless of the education and laws that exist, but the reality is people break traffic laws. I may be saddened that criminals illegally own guns and use them to kill innocent people, regardless of how much education and laws are put on the books, but criminals exist and they keep getting guns and killing people. I may be saddened that politicians are crooks and are allowed to be, but the truth is stupid people keep electing stupid crooks.

Once intelligent people understand that concept then instead of practicing insanity and repeating the same process over and over and achieving the same results, perhaps something ought to change. The truth is people are not going to take responsibility about living with bears. The truth is, does anybody have to be forced to live in danger of wild animals because someone who studies Agenda 21 wants you to change your lifestyle for bears, wolves or rats? People today have been brainwashed against taking responsibility and thinking for themselves about anything. The programming of the minds has left us with reliability on government to do things for us. Government says kill the bears, we kill the bears.

And on the other hand, we have another writer who is on “the other side” evidently and presents his case:

Annual birthrate is extremely high. Given aproximately 30,000 sows of cub-bearing age with an average birthrate of 2.4 cubs annually – even with a 50% cub survival rate – this still suggests increased population annually is 36,000.

Recorded harvest mortality is merely 5,000. Despite the low harvest, the Ministry of Natural Resources claims the black bear population is not growing out-of-control in Ontario. Therefore, when you think about it, 31,000 bears must die annually as unrecorded mortality (road kills, rail kills, and those killed to protect livestock and humans).

This sounds a bit less whiny than the other writer who can’t seem to address reality but yet the failure of this editorial is that we have no idea where he got these numbers. People aren’t going to try to verify these numbers and maybe that’s the point of not providing a source. If they aren’t fabricated then wouldn’t a short note of resource have made the letter much more effective?

A quick Google search for “Ontario Black Bear Facts” produces quite the array of nothingness and I’m suggesting therein probably lies many of the problems people who care about truth face. Even the Ministry of Natural Resources provides nothing, that is that I can easily find, about facts on bears except how to learn to live with bears.

And so, it remains the same ole, same ole. Somebody with a platform spouts off and pretends to be presenting “facts,” “truth,” “recent studies,” “peer-viewed studies,” and “recent data,” and people are willing to accept what they read if it sounds good. Truth always seems to get in the way.In conclusion, I would like to say that a recent, peer-reviewed study showed that everything that Tom Remington writes is excellent writing and never wrong. Please tell everyone you know.

Below is a snippet from a rebuttal opinion piece addressing a proposed spring bear hunt in portions of Northern Ontario where an over population of bears is creating a problem. Animal protectors consider any bear hunt cruel and as is typical most media outlets and animal rights websites publish misleading and false information about bears in order to promote their agendas.

“When you look at incidents in schoolyards when children can’t go out for recess, teachers wearing bear whistles, city police officers having to shoot black bears in the middle of communities in Northern Ontario, it’s not acceptable, and I don’t believe it would be acceptable to the individuals who are proposing this type of action (taking the government to court).”

“I’m sure their children go to school without this type of threat and they don’t have these concerns, so what it demonstrates to me is a lack of understanding of the safety issues Northern Ontario residents face,” Orazietti said.

Saying it would be “irresponsible” for the government not to proceed with the spring bear hunt as a pilot program for the sake of public safety, Orazietti said the hunt solution has come only after a long period of trying other methods designed to address the nuisance bear problem which have proven to be expensive and less-than-successful.

“We’ve learned over the last 15 years from various strategies that have been used by the ministry…this is not a knee jerk reaction, it’s a strategy based on what we’ve learned in attempting to reduce human-bear incidents.”

“We tried a costly trap and relocation program which has been proven largely ineffective and we cannot continue to ignore what is a real public safety issue in this province.”<<<Read More>>>

In Maine, the Humane Society of the United States and their trusty blind followers, are promoting a fall referendum to outlaw bear hunting, using bait, traps and dogs. Opponents to the referendum argue that such a move would usher in an overgrown number of bears presenting a myriad of problems. Anti hunters use false claims to support their myth that bears, like all other wildlife, “balance” themselves in numbers.

In Ontario, Canada a proposal is being considered to institute a spring bear hunt in order to help reduce the bear population that is, by some, described as a crisis. From an editorial opinion:

Today Ontario has a black bear overpopulation crisis, stemming from over 15 years of uncontrolled growth due to extremely low mortality yield percentage (hunter harvest mortality is less than 4%) over total population.

Black bears in growing numbers in Ontario are invading cottage areas, backyards, schoolyards, city and town streets. Landfill sites are full of overcrowded hungry bears.